Receipt Batch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so description should explain destruction behavior. The description mentions 'inspects' and 'previews' but doesn't detail what gets destroyed or modified in create modes. No contradiction with annotations, but limited added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very concise (one sentence) but at the cost of clarity. It front-loads modes but omits important context. Could be improved without adding much length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, and description fails to explain workflow steps, required approval process, file handling behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with 6 parameters and destructive actions, this is insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions; the description adds no new parameter meaning beyond listing modes, which is already in the schema enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description is vague: 'Merged receipt batch' is unclear. It lists modes but doesn't clearly state the tool's overall purpose of processing receipt files in batch. Compared to siblings like batch_confirm_journals, purpose is ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides mode distinctions (scan, dry_run, create) and notes that create modes require approval. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus other batch or receipt-related tools, nor when not to use it. No explicit alternatives given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.